50 Shades of Twilight

Since 50 Shades of Grey is essentially the same plot formula as Twilight, feel free to insert the relevant protagonists’ names for Bella and Edward here.

I’ve had a lot of PMs asking me for some input regarding the runaway popularity of the B-Grade fan porn that is 50 Shade of Grey. Vox had a brief spot about it in relation to how men can’t win for losing in girl-world. Aunt Giggles had an interesting run down of its popularity, but predictably eels her way around the operative point of how semi-violent romance porn affirms the uglier truths of Game and hypergamy – not to mention avoiding the sticky aspect of ‘committed’ women fantasizing about it.

I honestly haven’t given the book too much headspace since it only reaffirms what the manosphere has been professing for over a decade now: in spite of all protestations of the opposite, women get off on dominance. Big shock, I know. It’s ironic that The Chateau should need to cite psych study upon psych study, ad infinitum for 6 years to reinforce a dynamic that women will now gleefully admit to only after a cheap, fanfiction sub-porn hack calls them blushingly out to the carpet on it.

If this book represents any significant turning point it will be its role in provably, viscerally, forcing women to acknowledge their own bullshit. I can hardly wait for the girl-world collective mental twistings in the wind – the desperate whir of millions of rationalization hamsters grasping for a plausible deniability or a freshly minted social convention (male shaming for bringing women to men’s porn mentality) that will excuse them from the guilt of an inconvenient truth. Perhaps the NAWALT trope, that one’s always the Swiss army knife for the feminine cause. Really anything that will put the Hypergamy Genie back in the bottle and keep the questioning Betas from getting too curious about feminine nature will do.

In the Bitter Taste of the Red Pill comments, esteemed colleague Dalrock had a timely and profound post that fits this porn-dominance formula perfectly:

These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherrently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.

They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose controll to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.

They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.

One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actuall amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimik would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of controll the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.

Behold, the female porn dynamic perfected. Danger without danger, bad boy with a heart of gold, a guy who wont cheat, but could cheat,..

“These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherrently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self.
****
And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.”

FIrst they want to make the beta more alpha. But the ultimate fantasy is to make the alpha more beta. They want to get to know the brooding, mysterious alpha and slowly draw out the beta, but not too much or too fast, and they want that beta to be available only to them and no one else.

They want the dangerous alpha to be made only a little less dangerous for her sole benefit. If he’s a bad boy, he needs to be bad to everyone else but her. IF he’s an asshole, he needs to be an asshole to everyone else but her. If he’s brooding and mysterious, he must keep everyone else at arm’s length, but he must let her all the way into his world. And it must be sanitized and antiseptic and free from hazards.

I dont know. I used to think girls fell in love with the “positive” aspects of the wolf. Now Im starting to think Im projecting there, and that it’s me, seeing the positive aspects of the wolf, or, the “beta in the alpha”, so I can rationalize the whole thing.

It makes more sense that girls want the wolf for the wolf.

Forget about the sanitizing stuff. Maybe they just want the danger, negative emotions included.

None of the “taming” the alpha, but “owning” the alpha, which is different.

If you own a dangerous wolf, then you own a dangerous wolf. You dont own it and love it because he behaves like sheep with you. It’s a freaking murderous wolf. That’s why you got it. If you wanted a sheep you would have gotten one.

If Im right, then women want to “own” men including betas and do as they please with them. The security and safety dont come from they taming or changing the alphas, but from the owning / control perspective. The carousel feels “safe” when women can decide when and how stuff ends and starts and how long it lasts and who pay. It doesnt require alphas to be “tamed” or whatever. All it needs is that women own the circus, and it becomes “safe”

One interesting aspect of this story formula is the necessity women feel in adding a more overtly sexual element to what’s really tripping their emotional response to the narrative.

It’s not enough to just have the Alpha wolf love and cherish the Lego brick, women will take up new careers as fiction writers (albeit unoriginal writers) in order to put a more satisfying visceral sexual element into that story if it’s not present, or well represented enough, and in their ideal terms.

I don’t know. I will only give you my own perspective here, but I suspect that it goes the same for other women. I don’t want to own my husband. On the contrary, I like the feel of him, sort of owning me. He likes to call me “woman” as in “woman, make me a sandwich”. Now, he says it with a twinkly in his eye, only half joking. I LOVE it. It makes me feel like I am his. That I am his chosen one, as it were. I have no interest in owning him, because if I did he would no longer be the alpha he is. He would not be his own man. If I was able to do what I please with him, he would no longer be choosing me, rather I would be choosing him. This would make me feel like I have control over him, and while women say they want this, they don’t. We don’t respect a man that we have power or control over.

Great post, my wife is currently reading this series and despite the drivel that is spewed within (weak writing, unrealistic plot, disjointed sex “scenes” based on my quick skimming over some of the first book) she has been titillated. I’d say this suburban mom support for this type of book supports hypergamy and the dominant male, alpha-types that they don’t see in their partners. For me personally as I work to up my Alpha in the MMSL sense, I’m hoping to jump on the train and open up some new possibilities in the bedroom.

Bear with me. I can’t answer these questions without it sounding like I am blowing up my own skirt. I’m not attempting to do that. I am just trying to answer your questions.

How does that reconcile / cohexist with nagging, for example, or manipulating the guy so he does what you want?

I don’t nag. Been there/tried that. It’s useless and pointless.

Me: Hubby, I have asked you to do X. Why haven’t you done it yet?

Husband: If you stop nagging, I just might get to it.

Me: I would stop nagging if you just got it done.

Husband: Cold steely stare. Code for “ENOUGH.”

Me: Ok. (Walking away)

I later asked him how I should broach things that need to be done that I cannot do myself. His response was to ask one time and give him a reasonable time frame. Since then, I have learned to do most of the stuff that I need done myself and for those things I cannot do, I ask him once, give him a time frame and it usually gets done. If it looks like he may have forgotten, I remind him with a single sentence in a normal tone of voice. He knows that occasionally he will forget so this does not bother him.

Or, if you dont own him, the alpha, how come he’s not banging every other girl around you?

He gets hit on all the time. He could if he wanted to. He knows it and I know it. He doesn’t want to. To be quite frank, no one else could care for him like I do. We both know that as well.

but predictably eels her way around the operative point of how semi-violent romance porn affirms the uglier truths of Game and hypergamy – not to mention avoiding the sticky aspect of ‘committed’ women fantasizing about it.

I read many of the comments, and I continue to be surprised at the step-by-step regression to a more “blue-pill” outlook on all things related to gender dynamics and female sexuality.

One comment in particular literally shocked me (I’ll try to dig it up later) but amounted to “Hey, Beta Nice guy, don’t worry one bit about what this book says, IT”S JUST FANTASY, in “real-life” we really like you cuddly nice guys better”. I’m overstating a bit, but that was the gist.

Heh, sorry. Thought you were sparing my feelings (solipsism wins again! Hate it). Aside from that, I feel somewhat safe giving my personal impressions as they are just like most other women’s. I don’t think my impressions would be that far off from most of them.

Aight, but why did you try to begin with? how do you reconcile having attempted to have him do what you want, with your claim that you dont want to own him?

I tried it to begin with because I thought that was how it was supposed to be done. Call it a shit test. I tried what I saw most everyone else doing. It didn’t work and there was a lot of confusion on my part because of this. Now, that being said, if it did work, the desire to own him would be there. If he allowed it, if he was beta and allowed me to fill that power role, then I would not want to give it up. And I would resent him for it, as well. To own a man is to resent him and have no respect for him. I want nothing to do with that.

So he can fuck any girl he wants while he’s married to you? if he wants, he can?

I can’t stop him, Yohomi. I never gave him permission to sleep with other women, but really, if he wanted to sleep around, what could I do about it?

“Care for him” is a sexual thing?

Care for him in anything he wants or needs. Sexual, cooking, cleaning, sammiches, you name it. Thing is I like to do these things for him. What’s more, he deserves them.

Ha! I was sitting here thinking and I new you were going to ask this: How can you give permission or not to something you dont own? I have been thinking about my response.

I was responding to your use of the word “can” in your original question. Reading it, I took your surprise to mean that this was something we had discussed in our marriage and I was ok with it. Therefore, me being ok with it was somehow giving permission. No, it’s not like that. Out of respect for me and our marriage my husband will come to me with things that we need to decide on together. He always makes the final decision, however. (Also, this is not something we have ever discussed.)

Also, keep in mind, there is a duality in the female mind. I would resent my husband if I owned him. But there is always a part that tries to gain power, to push the limits of the alpha. They are the shit tests. While I really don’t want the power in our relationship there are situations that arise that my hindbrain tells me to take advantage of, because if I did I might just be able to shift the power dynamic to myself. I have to shut it down to keep myself from giving whatever shit test I could make happen. The more aware I become the easier it is to stop myself. I have yet to figure out how to make the feelings disappear though.

(If any of this does not make sense, please ask. My kids are talking to me and I am losing my thoughts.)

“While I really don’t want the power in our relationship there are situations that arise that my hindbrain tells me to take advantage of, because if I did I might just be able to shift the power dynamic to myself.”

I know the community wants to call these female hindbrain power pushes “hit tests”. I´ll call them what they are, reptilian hindbrain power pushes. Real attempts to gain power. Men have them too. The difference is we men dont get all unaroused / dont resent the situation when we get the power.

We resent it when we concede the power and it gets used against us. It’s like the ultimate male on male betrayal, make a deal / make the peace only to have them abuse you, a guy has to be really evil to pull that one with a straight face. With women, it’s the default procedure. You concede power? you lost. Ping. Hence the dumb “test” thing to it. But it’s not a test, it’s you, your hindbrain, craving some power. So.

Anyway.

Im still curious about a non-owning relationship where you can still set the limits for behavior. Specially when, well, any time you get to set the limits for behavior = you gain power = you resent it. I know Im painting this in hard white and that there are always compromises and stuff. But I’d like you to shred more light on that micro-sphere if you can. This:

When you win a power play, you resent it. Still, you want power / control over him fucking other girls or not. Do you resent him for not fucking other girls?

This may take some time and more than one comment. Kids are busy today and this is one thing I have to think about in quiet to be able to answer you well. Please bear with me. Also, due to the conflicting feelings in women we are talking about, I may get it wrong and have to back track some. You asking specific questions will help me to not do that. Anyway, bear with me. I will answer the everything as soon as I can.

Real attempts to gain power. Men have them too. The difference is we men dont get all unaroused / dont resent the situation when we get the power.

and

But it’s not a test, it’s you, your hindbrain, craving some power. So.

I am not sure that it is actually craving power so much as it is wanting to make sure that the man still maintains the power. If a man can stand up to the woman he loves, she can rest assured that he will stand up to anyone else. However, where there is a power *hole*, she will fill it if the man won’t. That hole must be filled, no matter what. It’s a terrifying feeling leaving it open.

Also, there is more to it than that. As you know, validation is like crack to us. If we can take power from a man, than it validates ourselves. That is a powerful thing. Contrary to that, having a man who won’t allow that power grab can be even more validating if we can show that off. The women friends will be jealous that we have that. Something else that makes all of this even more confusing is that in this jealousy the women friends may come down on the wife calling her submissive and not empowered. It’s crap, but when that herd mentality comes in, these words can be incredibly hurtful. The man must back her up in these situations and reassure his wife that she is in the right. More validation. (confused yet?) We only *feel* 90% of this and can’t put words to any of it. So while we understand what we might be feeling, we can’t make heads or tails as to the why of it. Women want to be right by the friends and the man. Can’t do both. But women will sure as hell try to.

When you win a power play, you resent it. Still, you want power / control over him fucking other girls or not. Do you resent him for not fucking other girls?

No, I do not resent him for not fucking other girls as I did not demand this power over him. I might be able to argue that our marriage demands it, but I know the reality is that this is a decision that he has made for himself. He is being faithful because that is what he wants. Of course he is attracted to other women, but out of respect for our family, our marriage and me, he doesn’t. I greatly appreciate this from him. I in no way resent it. Also, there would be consequences if he cheated and was caught. I don’t know what they would be. I guess it would depend on the situation of the cheating. He is happy with what he has so I don’t think the consequences would be worth it to him.

Im still curious about a non-owning relationship where you can still set the limits for behavior.

I am not setting the limits of his behavior in anyway. He will concede certain things to me for my sake and for the sake of our relationship. And I am grateful that he does these things. It shows love, admiration and respect for me. This in turn makes me want to work even harder for him and our relationship.

It’s a two way street. He puts in the effort and so do I. You’ve heard people say that it is a two way street. Both people need to invest 50% into the relationship. This isn’t true. Both people need to invest 100% of themselves into the relationship for it to work and be happy. (Into the relationship, not the woman. This is important.)

You just summed up the reason why it is all but impossible to have a relationship with most women these days. Their instincts are pushing them one way and society is pushing them in the opposite direction.

For a woman to be fulfilled she must submit to someone who is more dominant, but society tells her that’s “weak” which she equates with “bad” so she fights it. The end result is that no one is happy.

Women who become more dominant require men who are more dominant still.The shit tests become stronger. Women these days complain that there are no good men. Well, we only have so much energy to devote to bullshit so if you push and push and push sometimes it is just easier for us to walk away and do other things.

I commend you for your understanding of this dynamic. Throughout most of history there would be no need for women to wise up because the sexes were not in conflict but these days if a woman is not naturally submissive she must understand that the key to being happy rests in filtering the noise and following her instincts.

Reading the reviews of 50 Shades on Amazon will tell you everything you need to know. What’s especially hilarious & telling are the 1-star reviews—a fair number of them are complaining that the guy in the story wasn’t dominant/violent/sexy/alpha enough.

“If this book represents any significant turning point it will be its role in provably, viscerally, forcing women to acknowledge their own bullshit.”

You’d think that was the case, but I doubt anything will come of it. Those that are Game-savvy already know what you speak of because of Nancy Friday’s book My Secret Garden which was released almost 40 years ago! What’s happening with 50 Shades is EXACTLY the same sentiments that were brought to light with Garden all those years ago, so why would anything change now?

“Women who become more dominant require men who are more dominant still.The shit tests become stronger. Women these days complain that there are no good men. Well, we only have so much energy to devote to bullshit so if you push and push and push sometimes it is just easier for us to walk away and do other things.”

You just described feminism in a nutshell. It was a shit test women collectively gave to society as a whole. Society failed.

WHat I find most interesting about the comments women are making about this is the following slip up. They suddenly think it is sort of ok to admit they do like the alpha badboy as long as he is (only) nice to her. The fact that he is nice to her supposedly makes it alright and moral to want such a guy. But when they say it is not only ok but important that he remain hard and cold towards everyone else they admit they want an immoral man who behaves immoraly to everyone else than her. I don`t think they quite get that saying that means they want a man who is a sociopath towards others and nice towards them but that is what what they are saying means. They are NOT saying they want a man who is a sort of well balanced, mentally healthy , alpha that is leading everyone in a respectfull way. THey say they want a man you is an alpha in a really asholish way to everyone one else and nice to them. That does in fact mean they are admitting to and promoting a strategy of dark triad by proxy by getting a man to use the dark triad for her benefit. Romance novels just do not show a lot of well balanced benign alphas following a manosphere woman aproved Athol Kay alpha beta mix. Romance novels show very unhealthy men behaving badly. If women most wanted the balanced healthy alpha who commanded the respect of others not just fear THAT is what romance novels would be about. They are not.

Romance novels goes too far in terms of betaization. They end with the alpha behaving beta towards her and so people asume and some women argue that is what women want. But had the books had a couple of more chapters the alpha would have become boring to her and she would have lost attraction. Women don`t want the control the woman in the romance novels get in the end. They still do want the men to be nice to them but not in the way the romance novels portray. Women still DO want the alpha to be nice to her but they want him to still be in control and to maintain the feeling of having to chase etc. THe reason why the romance novels and womens dreams go too far in terms of bbetaization is that the moment when the alpha switches from alpha to beta feels so damn good, for a short time untill it doesn`t feel good anymore. THe reason it feels good is in order to keep women motivated to keep trying to betaize the alpha. So the thing that feels the best to a woman and which she chases is in fact impossible to have for more than an extremely short time untill it doesn`t feel good anymore, as in a day or a week or so. Had this not been so women would have too easily stopped trying to betaize the alpha whenever he was in control but treating her good. Womens curse is that they will always even at that perfect point feel somwhere that even more devotion would feel good although it won`t.

“having a man who won’t allow that power grab can be even more validating if we can show that off. The women friends will be jealous that we have that.”

I have been thinking lately that one of the most cruel and effective and impossible to spot ways a woman can hurt/get back at another woman is to let that other women she her be very submissive and respectfull to her boyfriend. Even though they won`t quite understand why and might at the same time resent what they are seeing on some level I would think all women recognize another womans happily submissive bodylanguage and behavior towards her boyfriend as something she would really, really like herself but probably does not have and hence be very jealous although probably confused. Maybe for women that are in the process of taking the red pill realizing this can be quite an added motivator to keep the proper power dynamic in place.

Women who simultaneously try to control men and want to be dominated by men… all line up with the Curse of Eve.

I don’t get overly frustrated with women who exhibit this (all of them), it is in their wiring. Don’t get mad at a fish for swimming. It is indeed frustrating that it is such an obvious fact, and yet women go around trying to deny it anyway. Of course they don’t want to tip their hand. Fortunately, thanks to books like 50 Shades, they will not be able to deny it much longer, which will help the red pill become more palatable for men who cannot currently accept it.

IDK why more men get so wimpy about understanding that women WANT male authority. Just grow a pair and roll, son! Why so afraid?? It is so scary to spank a girl’s ass? They aren’t porcelain dolls, they are tough as hell (they dont want you to know that either)

As to the issue of “romance novels”, I have written a couple books that are Dom/sub love stories. While they widely appeal to a female audience, if there are any in the manosphere who would be interested in checking out my newest, I am looking for some reviews. Free e-copy in exchange for your thoughts on “The Gypsy Queen”

I am quite curious how red-pill men would view this book, the way I did it.

Heh, NARNALT. I haven’t read any harlequin romance, but I am pretty sure these stick with the basic noble hero who could never, ever fall in love falling for the special everywoman snowflake. I’m embarrassed to talk about it because I know how stupid they are, but the ones I have read and enjoyed are the noble man incapable of love because of depression, brooding, etc, found Miss Perfect, dominated her and they lived happily ever after (Often times making it perfectly clear that for whatever reason he would continue to be dominate.) I think this idea of the anti-hero is fairly new. It has been a fairly new concept in Hollywood films as well. If this is what many women find scintillating, well, it is a bit telling.

Solomon Press: in other words, that’s the beaten-dead-horse trope “Why don’t men just man up?”

It has do do with what Stingray said here:

“Something else that makes all of this even more confusing is that in this jealousy the women friends may come down on the wife calling her submissive and not empowered. It’s crap, but when that herd mentality comes in, these words can be incredibly hurtful. The man must back her up in these situations and reassure his wife that she is in the right. More validation.”

Why not man up? Because to do so means you have to be enemies with all feminists and other men. Stingray says here that not only does she shit test her husband, but she also wants to see his reaction to defending their relationship against feminism. She wants to see him beat her own testing, her friend’s testing, and society’s testing. Who is on the guy’s side?

It takes too much effort and cunning to game your girlfriend, then game her feminist friends, then successfully deflect every guy she tries to pit you against. Man up= be very alone. Unless you are dominant and can coerce other men to protect you. Which is why we are regressing back to pre-civilization.

I guess a woman could use that as revenge. It would be incredibly easy, though, for the friend to turn that around using the weak and subordinate argument. I think it would much depend on the friend.

I think most women truly do want this, but when they can’t have it, it is VERY easy to fool oneself into being content with what they have, at least for a time. I am pretty sure part of the hamsters job is self preservation.

I gotta say though, and maybe I am over thinking it, any woman who consciously uses her man to make another woman jealous isn’t truly being respectful of him. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it is terribly disrespectful to use what a man has given you and then turn that and use it against another person.

You are. Past tense, here. The more shit tests you pass, the far fewer you will see. I don’t *want* to shit test my husband. When I feel the urge to do it (which is very rare) I squash it. I don’t expect my husband to defend our relationship against feminism, I expect him to have my back. It’s my job to defend the relationship and myself against feminism. As far as my friends, personally, I don’t have female friends. I don’t get along with women very well. They don’t like me much. But if any women I might talk to don’t like my relationship it’s on me to defend myself and my relationship. Not my husband.

However, if your wife or girlfriend keeps female friends that would discourage her and your relationship, then she should end those friendships. You or her friends. What’s more important to her?

Look, women hold just as much responsibility for the relationship as men. You may need to teach her that, as God knows, no one else does these days (you need to decide if you want to take the time). When I said you need to back her up, what I meant was, when she comes back from battle with these toxic women friends, you need to bolster her confidence back up. Give her the courage to keep up her own battles. If she expects you to do it for her, then something may not be right.

Stingray is next-generation woman, ahead of her time. After the sturm und drang of our anomalous era passes, all women will be on a path to where she already is.

Stingray, consider writing in a more formal way. You are in possession of an important piece of the puzzle that needs to be articulated consistently and regularly.

This community should have its own “NRO Corner.” The individual sites are too personalized and inconsistent, and the aggregator/gateways are poorly edited. The leading writers in this web consortium should arrange a gang-blog so that we don’t have to keep piecing together the conversation across a dozen platforms and unruly comment sections.

The “Alpha Game” site was launched with this concept in mind but is generally a failure, as all the oxygen of the conversation is sucked up by Vox Day’s domineering windbaggery and dorky diversions into his personalized nomenclature system.

I have my own list of who would make good gang-bangers, but really, even if two mediocre bloggists combined efforts it would have an exponential effect on the conversation.

Mine is more like “Rise up and subjugate women thoroughly”. I don’t think women should have the right to vote. I am all for Patriarchy (which, BTW, is an acceptable setting for men to ‘man up’ because they are in charge).

The “man up” cry you hear in churches would be more correctly translated as “lay down”

Your assertion that its “too much trouble” and to fight against feminism is to be very alone… well that is just wussbag thinking. I am a Dominant (in the BDSM sense) and I don’t have ANY of the problems you are complaining about.

The difference is, though, that I am not married. Marriage 2.0 is an automatic abdication of power, that I will never allow.

The regressing back to pre-civilization is fair enough. When collapse strikes humanity, (and it WILL), that collapse will bring about swift and thorough patriarchy, so I am all for it.

In the meantime, though, you don’t have to be alone. You just have to understand that chicks respond to Dominance, and as you gain familiarity with a girl, you can introduce it (from day one, really, but more subtle at first) and once you tie it in with mind-blowing, Dominating sex, she’ll be all in.

There are a lot of women, right this minute, who fully confess that they like to be Dominated, and that only a Dominant man will do. They don’t give a damn about feminists, and they also know the truth- that they, the submissives, are the most powerful and courageous women of all. Show your woman the truth of that transformation, and enjoy it as long as you wish, as long as you abide on the throne.

Speaking of chicks digging dominance, I had to drop some dominance game on a chick I am seeing. She just got out of a relationship and is in the stage where she is doing something 7 days a week so I don’t see her often. Recognized it for what it was early on and sat back and didn’t put much effort into it. Of course this works like a charm to get her coming back for more.

After some BS small talk via text the other day she says “I’m actually still kinda busy but when are we going to go dancing?” I didn’t ask her if she was busy or what she was doing or anything that would prompt that type of a response so the way she said that was off-putting.

My first thought was “Bitch. I’m busy too. Call me when you get some free time and I’ll see if I can fit you in”. Obviously that’s about the worst thing I could do, so my next thought was to go for the reframe with “If you’re trying to get in my pants you really need to brush up on your seduction skills” basically calling her out on the way she came off as being too busy. Thing is she’s the sensitive type who doesn’t do well with negs and teasing so I opted to go straight for the dominance play, so I replied with this-

“Tomorrow. My place @ 9:30. Wear your sexy black dress.”

Bingo. She replies asking me to clarify which dress I want her to wear, hehe.

In retrospect either the reframe or the dominance play could have probably worked, but given her sensitive nature and the fact that I get the feeling that she might be DTF I think I played it perfectly. No reason to throw roadblocks in the way if she is suggesting this kind of a “date”, even if she did come off a little rude in her delivery.

I plan on following through with more of the same dominance game when we are face to face. Logistics have prevented me from closing the deal as of yet but this is the perfect setup. Her car is at my place, walk to the club, get physical on the dancefloor, head back a little early, escalate and close.

I noticed this dynamic when I wrote side stories for a couple of movies on fanfiction. A lot of women read them and always commented positively to my male protagonists–which I based their personalities on heavy and dark, alpha characteristics.

They always say things like: he’s just misunderstood or I like how you make him so decisive.

I even made a graphic scene where he ‘took’ a woman, making her his wife by killing her husband in battle. Yet, instead of saying how horrible it was that her husband was slaughtered… they applauded the hot ‘sex scene'(more like rape)…

I understand what you are saying here. That’s why being calm and assertive always helps my LTRs. We need to be that anchor; that’s why we are the men. It’s part of that ‘dominance’ aspect. The man must know how to calm, inform, and direct his woman in a confident manner–makes her feel safe following him.

That’s why the man leads in dancing. The female can’t help but look up to him(boyfriend) for comfort. It’s in her programming. She wants to feel secure THROUGH him.

In all seriousness, thank you. A “Corner” blog could be very interesting, though I sense some danger in it. Can’t quite put my finger on it. There are a lot of VERY strong personalities in these parts. Would make for interesting debate, though.

Stingray is next-generation woman, ahead of her time. After the sturm und drang of our anomalous era passes, all women will be on a path to where she already is

Absolutely. There is a blogger Olive kind of doing the same thing, and there was one discussion on HUS where she got smacked down hard for some of the ideas and notions she was putting out there that related to female introspection and what WOMEN SHOULD DO differently.

Its way too early in game for the message and thought process someone like Stingray has to even be close to mainstream. Most women still want to square the circle so to speak.

Mike, I read very few of the comments there. Out of curiosity, what did she have to say and what was the general response? Good for her. I think she is quite young, too. It takes a lot of courage to say this stuff there, especially for a woman. I tend to temper (heh, Matt King, yes . . . temper) my thoughts when I post at HUS as I know that if I were completely blunt they would be outright rejected. I hope she took it well and stuck to her guns.

Also, thank you, as well. I hope I can at least give the men some insight into women’s thinking, if nothing else.

The problem with being feisty in a relationship is that it has the potential to create power struggles. Feisty can become aggressive, and aggressive women are not attractive and don’t handle relationships well. For these women, it is important to step back, especially if they do want their men to lead. My boyfriend, by nature, is a very laid back guy. That said, he absolutely hates when people try to control him, so in stepping back, I’m allowing him to be himself.

Anyways, there was a quite contentious discussion….Yohami knows what I am talking about.

The crux of the dilemma is the paradox/contradiction that many women want and are not introspective enough to realize is in fact an absurdity. They want to be “empowered” and “independent” yet want a “dominant” guy. They want to be “led” yet free to follow any emotional whim.

Dalrock nailed some of these contradictions in his comment.

One thing I notice about you and a few other women is you have the ability to recognize when the hamster is maybe getting active, and not let it take over. And just for the record guys have weaknesses as well. Both sexes have some weaknesses that need someone to develop some self-awareness to temper them.

It takes a lot of courage to say this stuff there, especially for a woman.

FWIW, I imagine this must be difficult. Everything I’ve read and studied seems to suggest women feel social ostracization orders of magnitude higher than most men. I’ve got to imagine this makes discussing substantive issues difficult where this is going to be immense social pressure to “fall in line” with whatever the majority of view. I suspect it takes enormous fortitude as a woman to stay totally independent of what other women are saying.

On that note, I always respected and admired Elisabeth Hasselbeck to stand her ground with those other shrews on the View

“I´ll call them what they are, reptilian hindbrain power pushes. Real attempts to gain power. ”

Exactly. I’ve always said that it’s a functionally accurate description to talk of shit tests, but it’s not a wholly accurate description. Women really actually do want the power. They are not merely testing the man. It’s more than just a test – it’s a genuine power grab.

And incidental to that is a general loss of attraction for the guy if she gets power.

I think it’s important to know that. Functionally, as a beginner, all you need to know is the shorthand “shit test” idea so that you now what to actually do about it. But for a bigger picture strategy you need to understand the underlying power dynamics.

NRO’s The Corner is not the best example (especially given l’affaire Derbyshire), but it is a successful gang-blog, the only one I know of and read.

Gang blogs require management and an agreement to be loosely corralled by editorial guidance, which is why it hasn’t happened in this community and maybe never will: the pretensions to independence are an article of faith that drives bloggers to blog in the first place.

A certain frame of mind regards editorial management as censorship, hence the exaggerated howling about Derb’s firing. (Which is ironic, given that his gang-blog “SecularRight.org” has erased my comments so many times that I stopped reading/responding.)

A quality product requires an editor to shape the direction of a publication. The “danger” you “sense … in it” is probably just that, a natural bristling at the editorial requirements of a readable publication, as opposed to the cacophony of low-barrier-to-entry, loosely affiliated bloggery.

In the meantime, be bold with your opinion here in the various comment ghettoes. Even when you inspire dyspetic reaction, keep coming back and do not be deterred. The value of your commentary is not in its correctness necessarily; the value is in its simple presence. The wisdom you provide is in the demonstration of how a woman with her head screwed-on right reacts to a raw exposure to the truth.

Is this true in most cases? I’ve been accused of being too clinical and not emotional enough in the past so I have learned to “react” to some of my SOs “crises” moments and honestly the results are less than stellar. Although she gets irritated when I don’t react, those instances generally go better, or at least conclude with far less drama. My preference is to stay cool, but I feel like I’m expected to get pulled into the chaos instead of riding it out uninvolved at an emotional level. I can’t say I’m trying to appease her by allowing myself to be sucked in, it’s more along the lines of trying to be more “normal” in general. But my tolerance for bullshit is low, and frustration of being forced to deal with it is enormous.

So how would one go about not being affected by BS and at the same time not appear to be aloof or uncaring? My gut instinct is to say “knock it off”, but that doesn’t seem very sympathetic. Or is the goal to actually NOT be sympathetic?

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.

Yeah somewhere in my brain I know this. I still struggle with the concept of trusting that *I* know better what my SO needs that she does. It just strikes me as being very egotistical. I can’t help feeling like I’m breaking some rule of “humanity” by assuming I know best. Although, I don’t have that problem with my children, because I assume they don’t have enough experience to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. Treating an adult like one of my children just seems very demeaning.

I hate being bound by societal rules, but to be honest it’s pretty scary for me to let them all go. It is exactly those rules that keep the worst of humanity in check, and although shrugging them off certainly affords a great deal of individual freedom, that freedom comes with heavy responsibility. Or put another way, if I truly put all my focus on what *I* want, I would probably not be a very nice/kind/pleasant person. Would it be better for me? Probably. Would it be better for society? Most likely not. And although I can’t argue that society doesn’t give a rats ass about my happiness, my sense of duty and obligation still pushes me to “tow the line.” This is just one case where I find myself wanting to “do” one thing, but pushing myself to “be” another to fit into some idea of what a “good citizen” is.

Perhaps I’m really just not a “good” person. That concern is what keeps ME in check.

It’s not egotistical to stand firm and do what you know is right. It’s not about giving her what she wants rather giving her what she needs. The two are often completely opposite. A woman is a ball of feelings at any given moment. A woman who is upset is an enormous ball of conflicting feelings that are nearly impossible to tease apart and figure out. What can tease them apart better than anything else is a constant man. One whom she can turn to and know will be her rock. Knowing that helps her to solve her own problems in time. It makes her a stronger and more steady person in the long run.

I can see that. I fall into the second category. I am very uncomfortable being responsible for other people, because ultimately I can’t control what they think or do. And if they fail while I am responsible, that means I failed as well, which puts my success in the hands of another person. Again excluding my children. But I see it as my responsibility to be in authority over them until they are an adult, so I don’t feel any conflict about it. However, I do personally feel responsible every time they fail at something, but do my best not to impart that pressure on them.

Logically I know equalism is BS. There is no way we can all be “equal” when it is clearly evident that there are many differences person to person. We may be able to set some base level of “equalness”, but there will always be smarter, faster, stronger, people out there, and you can’t have true equality between dissimilar things. And it gets further complicated when gender is brought into the equation.

But I also tend to feel that power does corrupt, and those that have it are influenced BY it. This goes much further than my outlook on male/female dynamics though.

I know it is hard to wrap your head around the idea that women are somewhere between men and children when it comes to knowing what is best for them but it’s true.

The only reason you continue to hold on to these flawed beliefs is because your logical man-brain has a hard time reconciling the disconnect between words and actions. When you begin to base your beliefs and decisions on the outcomes that you see around you rather than what women and society in general tells you that you SHOULD be believing and doing you will go from being a servant to society to being a master of reality.

Words don’t mean shit. Women will tell you that they don’t want someone who dominates but their actions belie their words.

“It’s not egotistical to stand firm and do what you know is right. It’s not about giving her what she wants rather giving her what she needs. The two are often completely opposite”

I understand that, but it still takes the responsibility from HER and puts in on MY shoulders. Why should I have to determine what is best for her, isn’t that her job? Further, I would be pretty pissed if someone acted the same towards me. I am perfectly capable of deciding what I need for myself, and if I’m not, let me fail on my own terms. How else will I learn to KNOW what I need if someone else always decides for me?

It is this shifting of responsibility that irks me. I am responsible for my children because they are not legally old enough to be responsible for themselves. Once they turn 18, the best they will get from me is an opinion IF they ask. I’m actually looking forward to not being responsible for them anymore, so i can instead enjoy them as they are.

GLC – “When you begin to base your beliefs and decisions on the outcomes that you see around you rather than what women and society in general tells you that you SHOULD be believing and doing you will go from being a servant to society to being a master of reality.”

I’m starting to understand this, but it still feels an awful lot like “the ends justifies the means” in that you are basing decisions on how you want things to end instead of on what may or may not be “right”.

Here is one of my issues letting this go: If I don’t play by the rules (whatever rules you want but for examples lets just say societies rules) I may very well get everything I want out of life. But, if everyone does the same, most if any of us will NOT get what we want, because much of what we each individually want is in conflict with what everyone else wants. I know beyond all doubt that there are people that DO NOT play by the rules, and even though they get what they want, they are labelled negatively because their desires go against the common good. I could easily be one of those people, but it would also make me a hypocrite, because I certainly expect everyone else to play by the rules, mostly because if they don’t life would be pure chaos.

I believe the only reason humanity has made it this far is BECAUSE we put rules in place to punish non-conformist actions. I believe more people aren’t murdered simply because most people fear jail enough to keep them in line. And even though I may truly believe that *I* am better than most people, in the grand scheme of things, who the hell am *I* to make that decision and act on it?

Like I said above, this goes way beyond male/female relations, and I don’t want to derail the conversation as I’m not sure how that flies here. :p

I was looking for a new elite men’s world. So, instead of talking I went to a foreign land, but their laws sounded like it was named after a woman and there was still females and girlie-men there too. I heard I was omega so I pretended to be a super-tough guy until I was told I had insecure little omega man syndrome. Twilight was when the beta vamp hiding behind a curtain said bring your sons and daughters to my castle dungeon for me to smear 50 shades of shtt in theirs and your faces, then with bloody eyes he replied to me dude bend over, I’m not a piggyback guy I said. To bring back 1946 I ran for office, but was not elected. I joined the amrish, but they kicked me out. I secretly hate everyone including myself so I sit in my adult diapers waiting on the bench. Don’t call me paranoid or a psychopath because my therapist doesn’t help me. I found the club of Monks, I don’t like them either, although they listen to me explain how it was better when we were kids, they call me Monk-E probably because I’m better than them, so finally it’s just us guys fading into oblivion.

There is a middle ground. You don’t have to choose between being a sociopath or a lap dog. You don’t have to completely throw away your morals. You just have to recognize when you aren’t getting a fair deal.

Stingray – “A woman is a ball of feelings at any given moment. A woman who is upset is an enormous ball of conflicting feelings that are nearly impossible to tease apart and figure out.”

I also wanted to comment on this and forgot.

Why is it MY issue to resolve her emotional turmoil? Wouldn’t a responsible adult realize they were an emotional wreck and do something about it themselves? I’m all for being supportive, but being the “rock” to tease apart her ball of emotions sounds like a co-dependency issue more than a healthy relationship.

Where is is HER ownership of her problems in this? It sort of implies that all a woman has to do to deal with her emotional crap is find herself a man that will snap her to her senses. It puts the responsibility of “keeping her in line” on her mate. How about she simply learn to do that for herself?

Because most of us can’t do that without a strong man t show us how. Holy Hell Ted. You are still stuck in this place where men and women are alike. We. Are. Not. Most women don’t even realize that they are a ball of emotions.

Bottom line: It’s not your issue to resolve anything at all. I am not saying you have to micromanage her whole life. I am saying you are the calm, the consistency. You don’t need to make her decisions for her. You be there for her to hang onto when she loses her way. Just know that she will. It’s inevitable. Something somewhere along the line is going to throw he off kilter and she is going to turn to you to hold onto. If your squishy, she is going to push on you like hell. If your rock solid, she will hold onto you and want to go where ever you lead.

Where is is HER ownership of her problems in this? Most women are never going to realize they even have problems in this to own until they meet a man who is strong enough and willing to show her what they are. It is 99% unconscious.

Ted, please stop worrying about being fair. Who told you life is (or should be) fair? Equalists, socialists? Brainwash, hogwash.

I think GLC was saying that you should question and suspend your belief in what you’ve been told by women and society. Instead base your beliefs on your first-hand experiences. Look at your immediate surroundings, peoples’ behaviors, and the results of your actions. Trust yourself to fathom the truth and make good decisions based on what you see, not what you have been told.

Stingray – ” Most women are never going to realize they even have problems in this to own until they meet a man who is strong enough and willing to show her what they are. It is 99% unconscious.”

Thank you. I’ve been asking this general question for some time and you are the first woman to give me a straight answer. I realize women and men are different, but it seems my mistake was believing that everyone should be introspective enough to realize at least some of this on thier own. In this light, it really is very similar to dealing with a child in that she lacks the experience to deal with the situation. I can handle that but I’m hoping that this also implies that she will at some point figure out how to deal with this on her own? Even a little?

This also explains why a woman would get pissy when she doesn’t “get her way”. I imagine it is the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Rollo – I get it, but I wanted to hear it from a woman. No disrespect, but hearing a bunch of men say what a woman needs just doesn’t seem legit, no more than a woman telling men how game should work. I’m all for doing my duty for my mate as long as it actually IS my duty and she expects it from me. I’ve been over at HUS in part because there are plenty of women there, and I was asking this question looking for some answer. I think several may have tried to say what Stingray did, but it was never put in blunt terms.

I can handle that but I’m hoping that this also implies that she will at some point figure out how to deal with this on her own? Even a little?

This is a more difficult question to answer because it depends on the girl. I believe the potential is always there, yes. Your strength should begin to feed into her and strengthen her. She will still need to lean but hopefully not as hard or as often. If she lets herself this can happen. I don’t believe that all women let themselves learn this though. Some believe that depending on or needing a man is somehow wrong and they will fight it. In reality, it is the most natural thing in the world.

Ted D wrote: “I understand that, but it still takes the responsibility from HER and puts in on MY shoulders. Why should I have to determine what is best for her, isn’t that her job?”

Ted, brother, it most emphatically is not her job. It is your responsibility. Now, being “king of your own castle” sounds like it’s all fun and games and capricious assertions of strength, and it is against this immature understanding of power that feminism revolted. Less appreciated is the responsibility: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” So while feminists think they want the crown, you boyishly fear the crown, like a Prince Hal before he became Henry V. Yes, it sucks in many unacknowledged and underappreciated ways to be “the decider,” but it is your duty, so be a fucking man about it.

What’s more, when you drill down even further, it is not even your job “to determine what is best.” This idea that you create your own reality and make shit up as you go is highly postmodern and unstable. It has led directly to the chaos into which we were born and with which we will struggle our entire lives, through accident of our birth in this most anomalous of generations.

In Casey, the Wise Moderates of Postmodernity summed up this moral disaster with the proclamation:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

No, and hell no! One can no more “define one’s own concept” of gravity or entropy or inertia than one can personally define the meaning of the universe. It is this intimidating and impossible understanding of responsibility that you fear, and it was never meant to be this way.

Your job is to be the master of your oikos, one of many in the oikonomos (economy). You determine the direction of those who live under your roof, and you bear the consequences of the household. You run the race within hard moral limits just as a stockcar driver pushes for maximum speed without losing control of his vehicle — or attempting to transcend the limits of physics.

And just as your household must act relative to the sovereign powers above you (man-made and natural law), your woman and your children act relative to your situational sovereignty. Not only is this an ancient, venerable, and well-tested arrangement, it is the only plausible arrangement given the limitations of man and woman. Only in the last hundred or so years have we begun to imagine ourselves limitless, and because of that we have created unprecedented upheaval wherein individuals like you wander around rudderless and confused about your duty.

Your duty, son, is to “take[] the responsibility from HER and put[] i[t] on [YOUR] shoulders.” That’s why men have broad shoulders, superior strength, and authoritative voices.

Just a minor note on terminology: here I prefer the term “cowshit”. That’s what it is, after all; let’s give credit where it’s due. The male is not responsible for the female hamster’s manure production.

I will risk ridicule here, and say that the reason that Stingray’s man controls their relationship is, at least in part, because he controls himself. A part of that is not banging other girls just because he can.

Also, even though he’s in charge, I think he must respect her; at least he respects the relationship.

Yep. He read this comment section the other day and said something along the lines of “I lead myself where I want. If I wanted to sleep with other girls I simply would.” End of story, really. The rest of what I wrote above might have a little to do with it, but it is minute and is likely hamster spinning on my part.

Actually, Ted, I think you’ve stumbled upon the meta-ethical problem known as the is-ought problem (look it up on wikipedia). As you pointed out it does go a bit beyond gender relations.

It basically boils down to not being able to easily say what ought to be from what is. There isn’t much of a disagreement (among the manosphere) about what IS. But can you really say what OUGHT to be from the reality?

It isn’t often talked about in these spheres but the counterpart to equalism being BS is that not every man can be an “alpha”. The world needs beta males. And there is nothing wrong with being one. Most guys fall into that category. Maybe you don’t have the temperament to step into the role of being responsible for other, and that’s fine. Just remember though, this isn’t a black or white thing and the further you fall toward the “work my ass off for everyone else’s benefit” side, the more you are going to get stuck doing shit for everyone else. And that sucks. So at least try to lean in the other direction.

I understand that, but it still takes the responsibility from HER and puts in on MY shoulders. Why should I have to determine what is best for her, isn’t that her job?

Most girls I date tend to weigh between 100-110lbs. I am just over 200. I could crush these girl’s heads with my right bicep. The fact that men are bigger, stronger and better able to solve problems means that a woman’s natural role is to submit to a man. I know that things have changed a lot over the past couple of hundred years but trust me, evolution has yet to catch up.

This means that men have evolved to lead and women to follow. It’s the natural order of things. It’s the way the world works. Any deviation from this script and you aren’t doing ANYONE any favors. Not the woman, not yourself, and not society. You think you are being polite when you are actually doing everyone a disservice.

Rollo – I get it, but I wanted to hear it from a woman. No disrespect, but hearing a bunch of men say what a woman needs just doesn’t seem legit, no more than a woman telling men how game should work.

Ted, man…….how long have you been around this stuff?

The first thing you learn when your eyes start to open is to avoid listening to what women say. Like, literally, if you can’t grasp this one very simple principle you might as well just hang it up cause this is what polluted your mind in the first place.

GLC – I’ve been around the ‘sphere for about a year, give or take a bit, but most of that time has been spent at MMSL and HUS. I made the rounds to other PUA related sites, but frankly the undercurrent of anger at most of them turned me off and I rarely read any of them. I have been coming here from time to time, and BadgerHut as well.

And I completely get that what women say and what they want/need is different, but I cannot in any kind of good faith simply decide to do what is best for another human adult without them at least acknowledging that it is what they want. My SO is an adult, and she is at least legally considered to be responsible for herself. Or lets go another way…

If I was into BDSM, I would need my submissive’s consent before proceeding to “dominate” her, correct? If I’m going to socially “dominate” her (which is to say be “king of my castle” the way described here) should I not at least get some form of approval from her first? And, I would suspect if I asked the question, I would get a resounding NO (since I know my SO claims to want an egalitarian relationship) which would then mean that my taking the lead goes directly against her stated will, regardless of if it is the right or wrong thing to do.

Rollo – “This is how I know you’re still plugged into the Matrix. Your default authority is still what women tell you.”

As an adult, my SO gets to decide if she wants my leadership or not. How can anyone with any bit of morality or even conscious simply decide for another adult what is best for them? Do you honestly not see that as arrogant? I’m not saying I’m incapable of doing it, and in fact I believe that having the “reins” in the relationship would allow me to improve things easier and with less drama. However, if it goes against her will, then I have no claim to that role. Unless of course you are implying that it is my role by default since she agreed to be in a relationship with me. That would be fine provided it was laid out in the beginning and clearly stated. However I don’t think there are many if any modern American women that in any way believe it. In fact, I would wager that most are completely against the concept.

So, how does one morally go about taking the leadership role without completely removing agency from their partner? You can claim that women aren’t independent and don’t have agency all you want, but the law isn’t on your side.

All that may be true, but the law doesn’t see things in terms of “natural order”. It may be that men should “lead” and women should “follow”, but unless you know some trick I don’t see how we can ever get that concusses to fly. Perhaps there is a chance on the individual level, if every man starts his relationships with something like “if you are going to be with me, then you will be following my lead. If you are not happy with that, please say so now and I’ll move on.” IF every women didn’t run for the hills immediately, I would be shocked as hell.